this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2026
82 points (92.7% liked)
Asklemmy
55604 readers
384 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I was raised with Gloria Steinem's definition of feminism shaping my understanding, and have called myself a feminist since I was a child:
A more modern and inclusive version of that same idea, adopted by UN Women:
Feminism is a very complex grouping of movements and ideologies, but I think "membership" within them is very simple: if you believe in equality regardless of gender, you're a feminist.
How does it feel that the person who defined feminism for you was a CIA agent?
Not great!
Are you implying that feminism is a CIA initiative?
Source: Jacobin
They didn't imply feminism is a CIA initiative, but the CIA definitely worked with her to influence the feminist movement.
Sure, because they cared about controlling the direction of the political movement, same way they influenced the Civil Rights movement. But once again, unless they are implying that the definition of feminism as offered by Steinem, quoted above, is part of a CIA influence op, or tainted by their influence, then what's the point of bringing that up?
To have a conversation? To get further insight into how a person thinks? To gain understanding? To talk about the ideological framework through which the person views the world, and hopefully gain some perspective out of that talk?
If they truly intended it to be a neutral question, then they used a particularly bad choice of phrasing.
Most people understand the CIA is a tool of imperialist violence/authority, but framing that as "how does it feel to x" is clearly a condemnation of the association being pointed out, which in this case would only matter if that association itself in some way taints the topic it was brought up in response to... I.e. the definition of feminism by Steinem.
Fair point.
This raises the question whether feminist is the right word for those definitions. Humanist, maybe?
I'm not trying to "all lives matter" the situation β the history of the treatment of women warrants specific advocacy. But I think of a feminist as someone who (regardless of gender) is actively an advocate for change, not just someone who believes in equality.
That's the connotation I have for the word anyway. Clearly UN Women are a more authoritative source, and they specifically use the word "belief," so my connotation seems to be wrong.
What's different to me is it's feminism not femalism, in that feminine doesn't tend to mean women specifically. I would actually argue it's mostly used as a modifier of explicit non-women, and is, in a roundabout way, directly about men and anything unassociated with women as well.
As if to say "this isn't about women, it's about the opposition to non-manliness that exists in the world".
Like a white person is not black, but a man can be feminine. That's not to say black issues aren't pertinent to white people in a similar way (if one of us is not free, none are free, nonblack people demeaned for cultural blackness, etc), but it's an identity that can be wholely intrinsic to a man.
Oh, and another point you bring up I think is interesting is the distinction between holding the belief and directly or strongly acting on it, and should we consider a believer or passive actor as non-ideological? I think that comes down to a No True Scotsman sort of mindset.
Kind of rambling and pedantic, but I like to think about the little details.
Edit: Actually, the more I think about it, the more it kind of is the same as BLM, and I think even just holding the belief is important.